quote:

Originally posted by MarkT I just don't believe that current costs are excessive at all. Students crying about tuition costs get ZERO sympathy from me. I had to work every year AND take a loan to pay for school and everyone else can do the same. I think easy access to loans and flexible repayment is all that should be expected from the gov't.

I know relative to the US, our education is cheap in absolute dollars (particularly with a par dollar) but that doesn't change the fact that if you want to encourage post-secondary education in this country, it needs to be accessible and loans only increase the accessibilty to DEBT. The expectation that you need to take on the equivalent of a down payment on a house (or the principal on a house if you're a professional student) is absurd and shouldn't be considered encouraging.

As for OSAP, I believe the loan is interest free during your school year. During the "grace period" post-grad, you are not required to make principal or interest payments but the interest you WOULD have paid during that period is simply added to your total amt owed. Therefore if students take advantage of a longer grace period, they are only going to end up handing over more interest to the government on the loan when all is said and done.

I thought intrest is paid to banks, the government only guarantees the loan and do not profit from the intrests.

___________________
[/IMG]http://i54.tinypic.com/ngycqo.png[/IMG]

I pay my interest to the national student loans centre. If the payments are only being transferred to a bank without my knowledge, that still doesn't change the fact that it's kind of a bullshit election promise.

quote:

Originally posted by Swamper Relevant to those buying a house: The federal government announced the changes at the beginning of August, with the new regulations going into effect October 15. The three most significant are: -the end of the 40-year amortization -the requirement for borrowers to have a minimum credit score of 620 -end of zero-down mortgages

This is only for CMHC insured mortgages.

There are other insurers who will provide insurance for those with 35+ year amort and < 620 FICO.

___________________
- rabbit.joker [funny¿rabbit] | www.rabbitjoker.com |www.ddtt.org

Dark Dirty Tech Tribal. | Hands in air (trance) and feet on the floor (house).

If you're still not decided....

Click here: http://www.ctv.ca/mini/election2008/quiz/game.html

Don't click the flash game below, click above. I wasn't able to fix the code to grab the quotes to work on TA, but below gives you an idea of what the link is.

___________________

Short time TA, Long time Guver, Good time giver.

I ended up with Liberal....which doesn't really surprise me.

___________________

quote:

Scott has been introduced to the rave scene, and Ecstasy, by Craig. The two of them go out on the weekends, with some of Craigs friends, and stay up all night, dancing in a drug-fueled trance.

Last edited by Moral Hazard on Apr-26-2011 at 07:48

quote:

Originally posted by ChemEnhanced I ended up with Liberal....which doesn't really surprise me.

I thought my answers varied, but I guess I was labeled Liberal overall.

___________________

Short time TA, Long time Guver, Good time giver.

quote:

Originally posted by MarkT - Quarterly $1000 grant for students, paid with or around the time of the GST rebates. This partially alleviates fronting all costs and waiting for a tax refund in the spring. - the $1000 is reduced to $250 for those with jobs (I think that's what he said)

Errrr... doesn't that effectively discourage students from getting jobs? What a strange incentive. If the aim is to provide incentives for education then employment status should be irrelevant.

quote:

- $5000 in OSAP is *guaranteed*, regardless of family income. - loan interest rates capped at Prime + 0.5% - interest free grace period following graduation is extended from 6 months to 2 years.

I went to school. I know what most students actually do with that money. Our education is subsidized enough already; the more "accessible" you make it, the more lazy deadbeats you attract who are only interested in the lifestyle and the gravy train.

Maybe I'm old-fashioned but I don't see education as a right. It's a tool, an investment. People take their studies much more seriously when it's their own money on the line. Yeah, sometimes people's parents pay their way and it's "unfair", but some people's parents also pay for cars and rent. So what? That's their prerogative. Most of the time, when parents are paying the bills, they also want to see results, which is its own motivator, and isn't similarly true for the government.

I've always believed that heavily subsidized education lowers the quality of the education and attracts a lower quality of student. I think this premise is supported by the fact that private schools and universities tend to have higher standards and higher graduation rates than public schools and subsidized state colleges. I don't have more proof than that, but nevertheless, I'm not impressed by Dion's plan, and I wouldn't be impressed if it were coming from a Conservative either.

___________________
My party schedule:
2009-02-21 - DJ Attention @ I'm So Popular
2009-06-18 - DJ Annoying @ People Need To Know Where I'll Be
2012-11-32 - DJ Insufferable ɸ Or At Least the Stalkers I Complain About
2048-06-66 - Spastic & Whocares ¶ Although I'm Actually Flattered
9999-45-81 - Tweaker Gimp ☼ I Probably Won't Even Go To This But I Have To Make Sure I Fill Up All The Available Space Here

quote:

Originally posted by rabbitjoker This is only for CMHC insured mortgages. There are other insurers who will provide insurance for those with 35+ year amort and < 620 FICO.

unfortunately...no. Genworth and AIG have followed suit.

despite being private insurers, their insurance is still backed by gov't bonds or something like that (I'd love to pretend to know the ins and outs, but I don't).

so this will impact the entire industry, outside of lenders not governed by the Bank Act, like Wells Fargo who charge exhorbitant rates.

quote:

Originally posted by Abercrombie If you're still not decided....

Harper, surprise surprise.

A lot of the quotes from Dion make some sense too, but he babbles and wavers too much on them and gives noncommittal answers.

___________________
My party schedule:
2009-02-21 - DJ Attention @ I'm So Popular
2009-06-18 - DJ Annoying @ People Need To Know Where I'll Be
2012-11-32 - DJ Insufferable ɸ Or At Least the Stalkers I Complain About
2048-06-66 - Spastic & Whocares ¶ Although I'm Actually Flattered
9999-45-81 - Tweaker Gimp ☼ I Probably Won't Even Go To This But I Have To Make Sure I Fill Up All The Available Space Here

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut Errrr... doesn't that effectively discourage students from getting jobs? What a strange incentive. If the aim is to provide incentives for education then employment status should be irrelevant.

not really, since the "grants" apparently replace the tax credits. i.e. you get money now, rather than waiting for your (or your parents') tax return. so if you have a job and get less, you (presumably) retain the tax credits on the "grant" that you don't get, because you have a job.

the intent seems to be to provide cash flow during the year vs. waiting for tax time.

even if it was indeed a grant, and didn't impact the tax credit, presumably you make more than the 3k/year you'd be missing out on by having a job (unless you had a shit job, lol).

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut I went to school. I know what most students actually do with that money. Our education is subsidized enough already; the more "accessible" you make it, the more lazy deadbeats you attract who are only interested in the lifestyle and the gravy train. Maybe I'm old-fashioned but I don't see education as a right. It's a tool, an investment. People take their studies much more seriously when it's their own money on the line. Yeah, sometimes people's parents pay their way and it's "unfair", but some people's parents also pay for cars and rent. So what? That's their prerogative. Most of the time, when parents are paying the bills, they also want to see results, which is its own motivator, and isn't similarly true for the government. I've always believed that heavily subsidized education lowers the quality of the education and attracts a lower quality of student. I think this premise is supported by the fact that private schools and universities tend to have higher standards and higher graduation rates than public schools and subsidized state colleges. I don't have more proof than that, but nevertheless, I'm not impressed by Dion's plan, and I wouldn't be impressed if it were coming from a Conservative either.

dude, you read my mind...

basic, general education is a right and a *clear* benefit to society, IMHO.

but upper-level education, particularly that which increases income potential vs. everyone else (and especially graduate level education), is not a right, IMHO.

one SHOULD have to pay for that themselves. Increasing accessibility to loans is as far as I go, because that at least levels the playing field for anyone who CHOOSES to pay for this PRIVILEGE.

quote:

Originally posted by Skipper I know relative to the US, our education is cheap in absolute dollars (particularly with a par dollar) but that doesn't change the fact that if you want to encourage post-secondary education in this country, it needs to be accessible and loans only increase the accessibilty to DEBT. The expectation that you need to take on the equivalent of a down payment on a house (or the principal on a house if you're a professional student) is absurd and shouldn't be considered encouraging.

sorry, no sympathy!

people should be saving for their education. I didn't...and I paid the price by having to go into debt. I was also one of the not-so-lucky people whose household income rendered me ineligble for OSAP, but my parents and I didn't have savings beyond most of the tuition for first year. I paid the rest with a student line of credit at bank rates and it took me some time to pay it off. I take responsibility for being in that position.

professional student? surely you don't mean graduate students, like MBA, law, medicine, etc? because then I have even less sympathy, lol.

so someone pays 80k for my MBA from a top business school? boo hoo, now they earn close to that (or often more, immediately or eventually) in one year! or someone pays a couple hundred grand (or more) to go through med school? they have a meal ticket that pays six figures per year for life! law school? ditto! you "suffer" for a while to get out of debt and then are WAY above the average income.

why should taxpayers should FURTHER subsidize that education?

quote:

Originally posted by Skipper As for OSAP, I believe the loan is interest free during your school year. During the "grace period" post-grad, you are not required to make principal or interest payments but the interest you WOULD have paid during that period is simply added to your total amt owed. Therefore if students take advantage of a longer grace period, they are only going to end up handing over more interest to the government on the loan when all is said and done.

I honestly don't know if the interest is waived or added to the principle.

the gov't indeed just guarantees the loans though, with the banks still lending the money (and profiting).